Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

I signed the petition and emailed a bunch of friendspolitics really has nothing to do with being a bigot, racist, or homophobe. I'm not politically against homophobes who preach their hate doctrine, I'm morally against them.

Not quite what I meant. I mean, he's a hateful ignorant jerk. However, if you personally don't like him and that is why you don't want him to get the job then it's politically motivated. If he's not the best candidate for the job, then that's another matter entirely.

he's not the best candidate for the job, then that's another matter entirely.

and what I meant was I don't care if he's the best candidate for the job or not. A racist, a homophobe, a bigot, a murderer, a rapist - none should get the honors of such a position. Rewarding bad behavior makes it appear acceptable.

Using his own example, if Mr Katz was a member of the KKK and espoused his deep-seated belief, in writing no less, that blacks were not equal to whites and actually deserved to be discriminated against, or worse, deserved death; should that kind of person be rewarded with a federal government position of any type, much less one of such importance and honor?

I'm sure that there is another scientist, another brillant mind, that hasn't published a paper implying that HIV+ gay men are killers, that could be picked for this job which is paid for by tax payer money.

and what I meant was I don't care if he's the best candidate for the job or not. A racist, a homophobe, a bigot, a murderer, a rapist - none should get the honors of such a position. Rewarding bad behavior makes it appear acceptable...I'm sure that there is another scientist, another brillant mind, that hasn't published a paper implying that HIV+ gay men are killers, that could be picked for this job which is paid for by tax payer money.

I have to agree. This is a public, high-level position (I do have a problem using political criteria for regular or low-level employees so we don't suffer still another McCarthyite black-list). I signed the petition.

Meanwhile BP has announced sticking a 5" diameter pipe to suck out some oil out of the 22" diameter leaking pipe. Yippee!

and what I meant was I don't care if he's the best candidate for the job or not. A racist, a homophobe, a bigot, a murderer, a rapist - none should get the honors of such a position. Rewarding bad behavior makes it appear acceptable.

Using his own example, if Mr Katz was a member of the KKK and espoused his deep-seated belief, in writing no less, that blacks were not equal to whites and actually deserved to be discriminated against, or worse, deserved death; should that kind of person be rewarded with a federal government position of any type, much less one of such importance and honor?

I'm sure that there is another scientist, another brillant mind, that hasn't published a paper implying that HIV+ gay men are killers, that could be picked for this job which is paid for by tax payer money.

It's his freedom to say those things and while he can't expect to not have any personal backlash from it, if he really feels the way he does then he has the right to put it in writing. I would never give him even a modicum of respect, however if he's the right man for this job then it's his.

It's his freedom to say those things and while he can't expect to not have any personal backlash from it, if he really feels the way he does then he has the right to put it in writing. I would never give him even a modicum of respect, however if he's the right man for this job then it's his.

A climate change denier seems to be less than qualified for appointment to any position within the Department of Energy.

A climate change denier seems to be less than qualified for appointment to any position within the Department of Energy.

MtD

I'm one of those people who thinks that opposing viewpoints are important. Granted, I think the people who are denying climate change at this point are just nuts, but that's my opinion. (Same as I feel about HIV -> AIDS denialists)

I'm one of those people who thinks that opposing viewpoints are important. Granted, I think the people who are denying climate change at this point are just nuts, but that's my opinion. (Same as I feel about HIV -> AIDS denialists)

Presumably you think, therefore, that Inteligunt Desine should be taught alongside evolution in science classes?

Presumably you think, therefore, that Inteligunt Desine, should be taught along evolution in science classes?

MtD

I think it should be debated, not taught. Never challenging the status quo (regardless of what it is) is generally a bad idea. The only exception to me is something that is scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The essential difference between scientific law and scientific theory.

I think it should be debated, not taught. Never challenging the status quo (regardless of what it is) is generally a bad idea. The only exception to me is something that is scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The essential difference between scientific law and scientific theory.

Scientific "law" and scientific "theory" are the same thing. In science a "theory" is as good as it gets.

I encourage you to read this Q&A by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In a similar vein, I suggest you watch this video in which noted neuroscientist Sam Harris addresses numerous points, including "domains of expertise".

2. People who you label 'climate change deniers' don't deny that the climate is changing (it has been changing for millions of years). They are questioning whether the current change is *human* induced. That is not proven. (even though I tend to think so)

3. As far as I read he is being appointed " to an elite scientific panel that is assisting British Petroleum with the oil spill disaster in the Gulf". I don't see how his views on these issues are relevant. He may not be someone one likes, but if he comes up with the solution to the problem, should that solution be silenced because of his personal views?

In the context of this discussion the comparison is valid. Hellraiser supports entertaining across a range of areas oppositionist points of view no matter how ridiculous they might be. He believes there is value to be had in challenging the "status quo".

Well the difference here is that evolution is universally accepted by every scientist as the only theory that explains how the world works. There is no consensus on whether climate change is induced by humans. Therefore - labeling someone a creationist pretty much consign the person to the margins of scientific thought. "Climate change induced by humans" theory deniers (which is already a charged term) are probably as numerous (but definitely not an order of magnitude less) as those who believe it.

Well the difference here is that evolution is universally accepted by every scientist as the only theory that explains how the world works. There is no consensus on whether climate change is induced by humans. Therefore - labeling someone a creationist pretty much consign the person to the margins of scientific thought. "Climate change induced by humans" theory deniers (which is already a charged term) are probably as numerous (but definitely not an order of magnitude less) as those who believe it.

We'll have to differ as I assert there is consensus on the validity of anthropogenic global warming within the scientific community.

obviously some of us weren't the only ones to be troubled by Mr. Katz; and obviously he wasn't enough of the "end all, be all" or "solution to the problem" to be given this honor, or to even continue working on the spill issue.